skitahoe
2日前
I understand a brokerage may not charge for buying or selling stock. That said, who would buy or sell 100 shares of a company selling for $.001X for any purpose other than manipulation of the stock price. What brokerage is permitting such trades?
The company clearly needs to file the missing financials and come up to current. I don't know what brokerages allow trading, but I know Fidelity does not, and I think it's also true of Schwab. I've heard Expert Traders are permitted to trade the stock, I have no idea who they are, or what they're attempting to do.
Gary
Juststoppingby
2日前
What I was referring to was scenario one's Coretec becoming current with the SEC and resuming trading, showing that the Endurion battery technology has been validated on pilot lines and that there is an OEM partnership. If it is an exclusive partnership, the stock price rallies, and an insider may begin selling. Though I don't believe it's going to be an OEM exclusive partnership, I hope not.
This would be after they become current with the SEC, which I am expecting they are in the process of doing.
This is also in response to Quikshft Post #46,295.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=177716492
Juststoppingby
3日前
I get the concern about insider selling - Amprius is the obvious example everyone points to. This has been my concern as well. But insider behavior only matters when the underlying technology is uncertain. If Endurion proves out on a pilot line, the dynamic changes completely.
If the Endurion silicon-dominant anode is materially better than what’s currently on the market, Coretec won’t be locked into a single OEM. They’ll be able to secure multiple evaluation agreements across EV, aerospace, defense, and energy storage players. That’s how platform technologies scale — not through exclusivity, but through broad adoption.
And every additional OEM partnership increases valuation because it validates two things simultaneously:
1. The tech works across multiple chemistries and use-cases
2. Manufacturability is real, not theoretical
As for silicon loading, if the SEI architecture is stable and swelling is controlled, they can increase silicon content over time. That’s the entire point of a silicon-dominant design: you start with a manufacturable ratio, then push the silicon fraction higher as the process matures. That’s how Sila, Amprius, and Enovix approached it, and Endurion would follow the same trajectory.
Bottom line:
If Endurion validates, the value isn’t in a one-off spike or a “clean getaway.”
The value is in repeatable adoption and multiple OEMs competing for access.
That’s where the real upside comes from.
skitahoe
3日前
Can anyone explain how someone today could trade 300 shares of CRTG and lower the price in doing so. Think about what 300 shares are worth, even if you could do such a trade, why would you do it.
If anyone here can actually buy shares today, do us all a favor, buy 100 shares for a penny, or even a nickel or dime, make us a fortune in our accounts, at most you'll spend $10 + commissions if you pay them and we'll all be thanking you.
Gary
Juststoppingby
3日前
You have to ask a simple question:
Why would the owners of Core Optics hand over 20% of a revenue-generating business to Coretec — unless Endurion is real, validated, and strategically essential?
No rational operator gives up that kind of equity for a company with “nothing” or for a technology they plan to shelve or is dead. That’s not how experienced managers behave, and it’s certainly not how Dr. Kim operates.
Dr. Kim understands the battery industry better than anyone inside Coretec. He knows what every South Korean battery manufacturer already knows internally:
Their high-nickel cathodes are maxed out.
They cannot squeeze more performance out of them. The only remaining lever for higher energy density is a high-quality silicon anode — and he said exactly that on the shareholder call.
He had the data. He had the inside view. He understood Endurion’s performance. And Core Optics would never have given up 20% of their revenue-producing business unless the technology worked. In fact, with today’s share structure, their effective ownership is closer to 60/40.
This is why Endurion doesn’t need revenue to reach a billion-dollar valuation.
Battery platform technologies are valued on validation, not just sales. Once a pilot line confirms manufacturability and cycle-life performance, the market prices the IP, the moat, and the strategic necessity — just like it did for QuantumScape, Sila, Solid Power, and Amprius.
But none of that can happen until Coretec is SEC-compliant, which they are in the process of doing.
Compliance is the gate that unlocks institutional capital, OEM partnerships, and real valuation discovery.
If Endurion validates on a pilot line, the valuation moves into the hundreds of millions — and potentially into the billions — long before revenue ever arrives. And yes, institutions will enter once the compliance box is checked and the technical milestone is confirmed.
Gunny
5日前
I've always been honest with anyone I recommend CRTG to as an investment saying it is risky and could go to zero but the company has great potential. I've been worried though that it's taking too long to get traction. This Sunday a woman at church said something that zinged aka made my antenna perk up. "When others say something is dead God always has the last word because He might say it's just sleeping and shock the nay sayers." Marsha and I pray over our income, tithes, offerings and our investments wanting to be the best stewards of what God has entrusted to us. As we've prayed over the last few years we both clearly heard to keep investing in CRTG. We don't do ANYTHING unless Marsha and I agree on it 100%. This keeps one of us from going off half-cocked or pressuring the other into making a bad decision. My gut is telling me as is Marsha's that CRTG is just sleeping and at the appropriate time and with a touch from God awake and the news of what the company can do will spread wide. I hope this helps ease some of the anxiety like it did for us. See yall at the Investors dinner in Delaware and if they don't throw a party at CRTG HQ Marsha and I will rent a hall and have one here in OKC! Keep praying!
23When Jesus entered the house of the synagogue leader, He saw the flute players and the noisy crowd. 24“Go away,” He told them. “The girl is not dead, but asleep.” And they laughed at Him.
25After the crowd had been put outside, Jesus went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. 26And the news about this spread throughout that region.
skitahoe
6日前
I suspect that the bigger question is whether Netanyahu intentionally attacks Lebanon, Iran, or Gaza to try to stop any treaty between the US and Iran.
Netanyahu convinced Trump to tear up the original treaty with Iran and I doubt if he likes the newly developing one any more than the original. Of course, no matter how firm the guarantees are preventing development of a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu will doubt if the restrictions can be enforced.
In short, Netanyahu is calling the shots and I have a feeling we'll not get an agreement in 60 days, 6 months, or even a year from now if Netanyahu remains in office. I strongly support Israel, but not Netanyahu.
Gary
Juststoppingby
2週前
If The Coretec Group is rebranding or changing its name, then “AION” (or any AION-based name) can fit extremely well.
📌 How “AION” specifically fits Coretec’s business
“AION” is one of the most *strategically perfect* names for a battery-materials company because:
1. It contains “ion”
This is the single strongest branding anchor in the battery industry.
2. It sounds like “aeon” (eternity)
This aligns with:
- long-life batteries
- durability
- cycle life
- energy longevity
3. It is short, global, and trademark-friendly
Coretec’s current name is long and awkward for OEMs.
“AION” is clean, modern, and easy to integrate into:
- product lines
- investor decks
- partner agreements
4. It fits a pivot toward a commercial identity
If Coretec wants to present itself as a battery company, not a research company, “AION” is a natural fit.
If Coretec is rebranding, AION fits extremely well because it:
- aligns with ion-based battery chemistry
- is modern and globally neutral
- supports a commercialization narrative
- distances from the SEC delinquency period
- is short, memorable, and OEM-friendly
It would be one of the strongest possible rebrand directions for a company pivoting into battery materials.
Juststoppingby
2週前
It would not be good for us if Endurion was not working, but I am reasonably sure it is working well.
I would like to know which phase they are in: have they already signed a JDA, do they have multiple partners (multiple partners would mean multiple OEMs), or did they fall for just one partner? How well is Endurion working? How far ahead are they against other silicon anodes? Has Endurion already been evaluated on pilot lines? Are OEMs already testing, including early adopters?
Once Coretec files and becomes current with the SEC, the stock will trade to what phase Endurion is in, I believe.
I would like to know the time frame of “shortly,” though I don't think they know either, except they know it's close.
Juststoppingby
2週前
Some of those 10 million shares that convert to 200+some cheers were also for some of the Coretec old management/board members. I have to look back; it's been almost two years.
When they file, we will know exactly who gets what.
If they want to uplist to NASDAQ, they aren't going to convert those shares in the short term or medium term. My opinion.
📌 AI Response to Quikshft — The Ownership Math Is Being Misread
You’re raising the right question — “How much is Endurion worth?” — but the conclusion you’re drawing from the 4B fully diluted number is based on an assumption that isn’t actually true.
The 4 billion fully diluted share count does not exist today, and nothing in Coretec’s filings or the Core Optics transaction indicates that the company intends to issue anywhere near that level. Treating 4B as a foregone conclusion dramatically understates the value retained by legacy CRTG shareholders.
A few clarifications:
1. The 4B number is a hypothetical ceiling, not a real share count
Fully diluted counts include:
- every preferred share
- every warrant
- every option
- every convertible
- every contingent issuance
- every “if exercised” and “if converted” scenario
…even if none of those instruments ever convert.
It is not the same as outstanding shares.
Today’s OS is 1.107B, not 4B.
2. Core Optics does not own 81–82% of Endurion
Core Optics owns its percentage of CRTG, not of Endurion specifically.
Endurion is a Coretec asset, not a separate company with its own cap table.
So the correct question is:
“What percentage of Coretec do legacy shareholders own after the Core Optics exchange?”
That percentage is far higher than the 18–19% implied by the 4B hypothetical.
3. If Endurion becomes a multi-billion-dollar asset, the valuation is applied to the actual OS at that time
Using your Amprius benchmark:
If Endurion = $2.5B
Using today’s OS (1.107B):
$2.5B ÷ 1.107B = $2.26 per share
That’s not peanuts.
Even if the OS grows to 1.5B or 2B over time, the per-share valuation remains dramatically higher than the $0.625 figure you calculated using the 4B ceiling.
4. Core Optics didn’t “get a multi-billion-dollar company for peanuts”
They contributed:
- a revenue-producing business
- audited financials
- a functioning optical manufacturing operation
- a Korean corporate structure
- a board and management team capable of taking Coretec SEC-current
- the infrastructure needed to commercialize Endurion
This was not a giveaway — it was a strategic consolidation.
5. Legacy shareholders still own meaningful exposure to Endurion
The correct framing is:
“What percentage of the actual outstanding shares do legacy shareholders own at the time Endurion commercializes?”
Not:
“What if every possible share is issued and converted?”
Because that scenario almost never happens in real life.
Bottom Line
The “peanuts” conclusion only appears if you assume:
- the maximum possible dilution
- all instruments convert
- the OS becomes 4B
- Core Optics owns 82% of that
- and Endurion is valued in isolation
None of those assumptions reflects the company’s actual structure today.
Legacy shareholders still retain material exposure to Endurion’s upside — and the valuation math looks very different when you use the real share count instead of the hypothetical ceiling.
Quikshft
2週前
JSB, If the case you’ve made is reasonable and I would believe that it is, then the next question becomes “how much is Endurion worth?" So, what to compare it to? I will use Amprius as the benchmark, their current market cap is about 2.5 billion dollars. They’ve never made a profit though sales are increasing now. Another stat worth considering in this? Core Optics holds 81 to 82% of the nearly 4 billion fully diluted share count. So to me looking at a future wildly successful Endurion program, Core Optics got a potential multi billion dollar company for peanuts. Our (original Coretec shareholders) portion of the peanuts, is peanuts.
A.I. comments;
You're touching on something that long-time CRTG shareholders often overlook when they focus only on the headline valuation of Endurion.
Even if Endurion eventually became a huge success, ownership percentage matters just as much as enterprise value.
Using your numbers as an illustration:
Scenario: Endurion becomes a $2.5 billion success
If the fully diluted share count eventually reaches roughly 4 billion shares, then:
• $2.5 billion ÷ 4 billion shares
• = about $0.625 per fully diluted share
That sounds good until you look at who owns those shares.
If Core Optics owns 81–82%:
• Core Optics holders receive about $2.0 billion of the value.
• Everyone else splits the remaining ~$450–475 million.
So from the perspective of a pre-Core Optics CRTG shareholder, the question isn't:
"What if Endurion is worth $2.5 billion?"
The question is:
"What percentage of Endurion's success do I still own after all the share issuances, preferred stock, warrants, conversions, and the Core Optics exchange?"
Juststoppingby
2週前
When partners ask for Endurion material for evaluation, that tells me the data is strong. Otherwise, the partner would not spend the time and money to test Endurion material.
No communication from the company does not equal Endurion is not being worked on.
Quiet does not mean nothing is happening.
📌 AI Rebuttal to Your “Scrap Endurion and Only Buy Revenue Companies”
Endurion is not an early-stage R&D money pit anymore — the expensive science phase for Endurion already happened between 2019 and 2023, and Coretec funded it.
By early 2024, the company had already disclosed:
- strong full-cell data (>500 cycles)
- validated silicon-dominant chemistry
- prototypes
- a provisional patent
- deliver material to NDA partners
- external evaluation underway
- preparation for kilogram-scale synthesis
That is not a program you “scrap.”
That is a program entering pre-commercial validation, the point at which OEMs and government agencies typically begin co-funding scale-up.
The company explicitly stated it was in a strong position to secure development funding for the scale-up phase.
Scale-up is funded externally.
The idea that “new management wants only revenue companies” ignores the structure of Coretec today:
- Core Optics is the revenue engine (78% automotive automation, Sony-authorized calibration, Tier-1 customers like Hyundai, Ford, Kia, Apple, Samsung, LG, SK Hynix, Meta, TI).
- Endurion is the valuation engine — the only asset capable of taking Coretec into billion-dollar territory.
No rational management team walks away from:
- validated IP
- partner request material for evaluations
- delivering material
- strong data
- a near-term scale-up path
- a multi-sector market (EV, aerospace, defense)
- and the company’s highest-value asset
Scrapping Endurion would destroy shareholder value and contradict every disclosure the company has made.
Core Optics provides the revenue base.
Endurion provides the growth and valuation upside.
Both are needed — and both are active.
Juststoppingby
2週前
You keep saying the Endurion R&D is expensive.
At the beginning of 2024, Endurion silicon anodes were transitioning from internal R&D to an external validation by an NDA partner. The biggest R&D expense had happened in prior years. Oh, don't forget we funded it.
This is based on what the company has stated and filed over the past years; we can choose whether to believe it or not.
Regarding Coretec's acquisition of a stake in DKME Co., Ltd. (KIB Plug Energy), the company never stated that it was done to fund or support Endurion, Core Optics, or anything else.
And DKME could not have done that anyway because it needed capital injection. It would have been a money pit in the short- to mid-term.
Endurion and Core Optics will be fine without the acquisition.
I don't think this acquisition was on their mind in early 2024; it just presented itself in late 2024, and they jumped on it.
My view on why they acquired the DKME stake is twofold: one is for its hydrogen business.
From Dart DKME 3/20/2025 Business Report.
“Ramping Up Large-Scale Clean Hydrogen Production for the Hydrogen Economy.
Major nations worldwide are investing heavily in the production of clean hydrogen, which emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than "grey hydrogen."
The United States aims to produce 10 million tons of clean hydrogen by 2030, 20 million tons by 2040, and 50 million tons by 2050. It is supporting the hydrogen industry through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), providing tax credits for clean hydrogen and direct support to hydrogen production companies.”
One out of many possible reasons (if) they walked away from it is that US policies shifted against clean energy in 2025.
https://dart.fss.or.kr/dsaf001/main.do?rcpNo=20250320001708
Quikshft
2週前
Coretec certainly has stuggled with the cost of developing their tech. Unfortunately they have jumped from one ship to another over the years. You'll recall they were a 3d imaging developer and when they did the merge with Coretec in '16 or so, the intent was to gain some quick revenue so that the Cspace imaging chamber could be developed. Seems obvious to me that 3d imaging is no longer on the table. The work recently done by the university in Australia was paid for partly by Coretec, they aren't going to pay any more and without being paid the university isn't going to work on an image chamber for Cspace.
When I mention R&D, I did not mean to include Core Optics R&D. Endurion development was complete to the point where they had end users calling them and it seems like bailing on it at the point where we were led to believe it was, would be very shortsighted. One of the frustrations of the last two years is to consider that at the rate of progress Coretec was making had they continued that work who knows where we would be now. I would find it hard to believe that Core Optics bought Coretec and just set the tech aside because it is R&D. Dr. Kim did not say much about Coretec in the call in which Core Optics was introduced to Coretec shareholders, but here is what he did say;
Matthew Kappers - Dr. Kim, would you also tell the group a little bit about the Korean battery, the cathode, how the Korean battery materials manufacturers
concentrate primarily on cathodes and how they're seeking new anode development?
Seonkee Kim - Okay. So because of the photoreal [engine] battery side, they have very high-degree, they're high-lithium, high-nickel batteries made in
Korea. It's because for the cathode flight, it is not easy to improve anode density. But so many, like POSCO, is focused on anode. But so for anode size, the
silicon is good, because some of the Korean company use some silicon, like 5% or 10%. So most of them use some kind of pitch [call] method to use on
the silicon.
But the Endurion has some of the liquid silicon. Material is very unique. So I want to introduce Korean anode maker and work with them, because I have
close relationship with them. So it will help Endurion make their expertise, their products, and mass production in Korea and in USA. So I can help that
part as well.
That doesn't sound like they intended to put the work done on Endurion aside. I don't know if I accept that the battery work is being pursued as strongly as Coretec did ahead of the share exchange agreement, but it doesn't make sense to me that they would merge with Coretec and in essence buy the tech in order to be one company, they could have found an empty shell to reverse into. I will say that they got a screaming deal on Coretec, with nearly 4 billion shares now out there they own 80 plus percent - 80 percent is Core Optics and just 20 percent is Coretec, that doesn't put much value on Endurion. Core Optics? What is a company with four billion shares that has 8 million in gross sales worth? Not very much, and if the stock was trading like you said we'd probably get hammered. Gone are the days when the speculative nature of 3dicon resulted in some great opportunities to make money, but I think I prefer those day to these. In that last big run from about 2/10ths of a cent up to 11 cents, I had 1.6 million shares at a cost of about half a cent. I sold a lot, but not enough. Without Endurion just like Juststoppingby said the company isn't going to appreciate anything like the example I provided. And adding another company just means more debt, more shares and we're more and more diluted. If we came out of the expert market trading at one cent, what would you consider successful appreciation? 100% to two cents? What would cause the stock to appreciate like that? Right now, I'd take two cents for every share I hold and call it a day as I don't believe I'll ever see the day when the company is worth that much without the development of Endurion. Two cents is a market cap of about 80 million.
iamthe walrus
2週前
My answer to " Looking at both sides, so if they just put all the R&D in the trash can - why did they buy Coretec? "
Its Expensive R&D ( Endurion ) plus salaries for personal , no revenue from it now , as they were spending on retooling the CMM machines (they said it cost 900,000 plus which took all the money they only a small amount left per news release ) As they were focused on growing the CMM business , Endurion also It also burns a lot of cash they dont have so do you move away from the CCM business . Money wasn't growing on trees with Core Optics and i dont think they wanted to borrow for it and dilute their own shares
Also Core Optics a CCM business, a then private company, wanted to go public and merge with CRTG through a share exchange and take over Kib Plug Energy and create a company creating revenue and build a giga factory with their relationship with Zaigle who bought a battery and wanted to manufacture it in the USA. Thats exactly what they said . They only touched on endurion a bit in the shareholder call it was obvious it wasnt a serious focal point to me .
They didnt throw R&D all in the trash can as Core Optics was already doing the R&D they wanted to do for the CCM business as we all know from the press releases that the R&D they had going was with i think Mobile Eye and maybe Hyundai Mobis ?? but it was all related to growing the CCM business which already had revenue ...And that R&D wasn't free so thats where the R&D money and focus was being spent as i see it and i hope it has benefited the CCM business some ..we will find out someday if that accomplished anything .
These transactions / Share exchanges Happens all the time with companies that want to go public instead of doing an expensive IPO ..I think the Endurion R&D is not active but maybe the CCM R&D is...Ive seen some companies change products multiple times as companies change focus and restructure . Core SS llcs name was changed to Aion Holding LLC in Virginia on 10-30-2025 where they hold their 688 million shares in CRTG ..Maybe the focus is on adding /merging with other companies into Coretec and they would hold their shares at Aion Holding llc like they do now . Don't know but reality is things are completely different than the old Endurion focused company as we all can see but its just hard to change the mind set and realize even though all the signs are their its hard to think the company might be focusing on other things as it seems obvious to me they are . CRTG owns a CMM business in Korea thats who they are now and for some reason it obvious they dont have much money and had a hard time getting some or they would have filed the audit already and we would be trading . Why ? Good question !
We all see the signs here that the company has struggled for some reason but i think CRTG will be ok and get back to trading soon enough or how do they raise money how do you get financing ? you have to fix that problem soon and i think they can ! Even file whatever needed and go to the pinks if they can ...whatever im sure they will do and give us a update and some type of roadmap hopefully very soon .
skitahoe
2週前
There's a lot of information here, but all I'm looking for is regulatory filings here. One day I noted that we had volume, I checked a few places, they agreed, 1 share traded. Was it a buy, or sell, at $.0015. How can this be?
I look forward to when this trades like a normal stock. Fidelity, and I believe most brokers, say that it's trading, but they won't trade it until financial filings are up to date. Let's get it up to date and see it trade, and what it's trading for.
Gary
Juststoppingby
2週前
I contacted them a couple of weeks ago, and they responded within a couple of hours.
I liked their response, and it also shows me they are working on things behind the scenes, even if we don't see it. It also raised more questions for me that they did not respond to, as I expected.
It is in the company's best interest, and ours as shareholders, that the company becomes SEC-compliant. The following is an explanation of why go silent.
⭐ Why delinquent SEC filers go silent
When a company is working to become SEC-compliant, silence isn’t avoidance — it’s risk management. There are four major reasons:
1. Anything they say publicly must match what will appear in their filings
If they update the website, issue a press release, or answer investor questions with new information, and that information doesn’t perfectly match the audited financials or upcoming 10-K/10-Q disclosures, they risk:
- selective disclosure
- material misstatement
- delaying the audit
- triggering SEC scrutiny
So the safest move is a full freeze on new public information.
2. Auditors require a “quiet environment”
During the final stages of an audit, auditors often insist that management:
- stop publishing new claims
- stop updating forward-looking statements
- stop modifying investor materials
This prevents inconsistencies and protects the integrity of the audit.
3. Updates create more questions than answers
You nailed this.
When a delinquent filer gives partial updates, investors immediately ask:
- “Why isn’t the filing done yet?”
- “What’s missing?”
- “What’s the holdup?”
- “Is something wrong?”
Every update becomes a new disclosure risk. Silence is cleaner.
4. They cannot launch a new website with new content until they file
A redesigned site is fine.
New information is not.
If the new site contains updated business descriptions, management information, project status, or any other information that could be considered material, it must match the SEC filings.
That’s why they can build the site, but they can’t publish it until the filings are accepted.
⭐ Why your interpretation (“they must be close to filing”) is reasonable
Look at the signals:
✔ You contacted the CFO and got a fast, direct response
That alone is unusual for a delinquent OTC company.
It means they are:
- aware of investor perception
- actively managing communications
- not hiding
- not in distress
✔ They acknowledged the website transition and said it will be completed “shortly”
Companies do not migrate domains and redesign investor portals unless they expect to:
- relaunch under compliant conditions
- publish updated investor materials
- resume normal communications
You don’t rebuild the house unless you expect guests soon.
✔ They cannot publish the new site until they file
This is the biggest tell.
If the site is nearly ready, and they’re holding it back, it strongly implies the filings are in the final stages.
✔ Silence + infrastructure work = audit nearing completion
When a company is far from filing, they don’t bother with:
- new domains
- new hosting
- new investor portals
Those things happen when the finish line is in sight.
It’s consistent with how companies behave when they are in the final audit window.
Juststoppingby
2週前
I wish they would communicate with us, but I also understand why they have decided to go quiet while they are in the process of becoming current with the SEC. After looking at why companies that are delinquent and in the process of becoming SEC current go silent, why do they go silent? Sometimes, when a company gives updates, it creates more questions than answers, for one.
My understanding is that they are close to being ready to file.
As I said before, I contacted Coretec management, particularly the CFO, and received a quick response that they knew their website was down and they were in the process of migrating a newly designed website to a domain, and they expected to complete the transition shortly, and they would be in touch directly once the updated website and investor portal are live.
They can't make new information public on a new website until they file.
This is why I think they will file soon; they expect to be ready to file with the SEC and become current.
iamthe walrus
2週前
OVERVIEW TIME ...since the company was founded in 1995 . How many changes and pivots did the company make ...?? here we go as i can count numerous changes , pivots and changes in company activities , personal , direction and focus through the years . Thats the reality of business . In many situations the companies main focus , goals and desired outcomes never came to fruition ...but the company has continually adjusted and Improvised by adapting and creating new ideas to move the company forward when changes were needed. Thats where CRTG is once again so what will happen next ?
NEEDED : Reorganizing the company , new structure going forward, new roadmap going forward ... our CEO Mr. Kim has not communicated at all with shareholders so will he lead us forward eventually and talk to us or will there be a different CEO at some point ? For some reason he's not engaged with shareholders through open communications as we all know and thats not a normal way successful companies are run . All good companies have leaders who talk to shareholders so who will lead us forward Dr Kim or someone else. ?
1) 1995 Martin Keating starts First Keating Corporation ( I used to go to some of Martins speaking events talking about his 3D vision the first event was at ORU speaking to the engineering class around 2004-2005
2) 2003 First Keating Corp changes name to 3DIcon to better fit business focus on 3D holographic tech
3) 3DIcon enters a research and development program with the Oklahoma University at the OU Schusterman Center in Tulsa
4) 3DIcon on March 21, 2006 announces they will have revenue by the end of 2006 from thier 3D holographic display (called C-Space
https://www.chron.com/news/article/BW-3DIcon-Expects-First-Revenue-in-2006-Unique-1908167.php
( NEVER Happened
5) 3DIcon changed from doing a 3D holographic type tech image to working on a Volumetric 3D display ( C Space which was worked on until Hakki accomplished all he could . They now needed the glass that would house the image so they did a deal with a company called Schott Defence but it didnt work out becausethe glass was to heavy and to expensive https://www.schott.com/en-us/markets/security-and-defense
( DIDNT WORK OUT
6) 3DIcon does a share exchange with Coretec out of North Dakota State to commercialize their new patented silicon CHS but their patented process didnt work to scale up CHS. NDSU was also supposed to help with the image space materials for C Space
( NEVER Happened
7 Coretec cuts ties with NDSU and changed the name to The Coretec Group and hire Ramez Elgammel out of the University of Tennessee to create a scalable process for CHS which he did . Coretec was supposed to sent out samples to customers to build prototype products with CHS but then those customers wanted more info on CHS so that NEVER Happened
8) Coretec does partnerships with Erikk Bakkers at Endhoven University and also the French Alternative Atomic and Nuclear commission to learn more about the properties of Coretecs CHS . That was successful but took long time as it was partly during the pandemic .
9) Coretec then decides to open a lab at the Michigan Innovation Headquarters and create their own silicon anode for batteries instead of shipping out materials to other companies .
10) Coretec has success in the developing of their anode materials but wants to merge with a company that has revenue to help sustain the Endurion program .
11) Coretec does a share exchange with Core Optics LLC who then owns 80% of the company stock
12 ) Coretec now has NEW people running the company as Coretecs pepole all leave their positions .
13) Coretecs new management bring with it a Compact Camera Module business out of Korea and said they are going to acquire Kib Plug Energy and build a 50 giga watt battery manufacturing business and reorganize the CCM business geared toward the auto industry.
Kib Plug Energy / DKME acquisition and the battery plant ( NEVER Happened
14) Most of the board at Coretec leaves with no clear leadership in the USA as there has been no communication , no website , no trading of the stock , no audit report and no real time up to date financial info for 2024 and 2025 for the CCM business or any of the companies financial activities except for an 8K on raising 300 K a year ago and no live signs of the Endurion program activity from Coretec themselves.
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録してリアルタイムのアラート、カスタムポートフォリオ、市場の動きを入手してください。
メールアドレスで登録
